Commonwealth v. Poli

2 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Lebo

    405 Pa. Super. 316 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)   Cited 8 times

    In sum, appellant argues that the informant's statements were admissible as non-hearsay. Although we agree with appellant concerning this precluded testimony, we find that the lower court's exclusion constituted harmless error. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced into evidence to demonstrate the truth of the matter asserted. Commonwealthv. Poli, 264 Pa. Super. 1, 398 A.2d 718 (1979). Such statements are inadmissible absent certain exceptions.

  2. Com v. Baldwin

    282 Pa. Super. 82 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980)   Cited 10 times

    "Harmless error" is defined as one which could not have contributed to the verdict, and it will be recalled that an error can be harmless only if the Appellate Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless. Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 383 A.2d 155 (1973); Commonwealth v. Poli, 264 Pa. Super. 1, 398 A.2d 718 (1979). We are not convinced at all, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, that the introduction of nearly 11 pounds of marijuana at Appellees' trial upon the charge of possessing that substance with the intent to deliver it did not contribute to the verdicts.